Politics

[ewerk 30266]

1 hour ago, Rayvin said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalise-royal-mail-energy-water-savings-bills-national-grid-a9203636.html?fbclid=IwAR01MJMc4X7GG0UIAIGA6tNoNoRlcGDKqDkR_ttyeg-IcFoguC9WoRtpvAg

 

From the article:

 

The nationalisation of water, energy grids and the Royal Mail would save UK households £7.8bn a year and pay for itself within seven years, according to new academic research.

A report by Greenwich University’s Public Service International Research Unit put the total cost of compensation to private sector owners at just £49.7bn – around a quarter of the widely quoted £196bn price tag calculated by the CBI last month, which also covered rail.

Labour’s manifesto for the 12 December general election is expected to include commitments to take the rail network, National Grid, water and mail delivery back into public hands.

PSIRU director David Hall said his estimates were based on compensating shareholders for the amount they have invested in utilities being taken into public hands, rather than paying out a “market value” price as the CBI suggested.

Yeah except they’d have to pay market value or near to it unless they wanted to fuck the stock market and therefore pension holders.

[Rayvin 5183]

45 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Yeah except they’d have to pay market value or near to it unless they wanted to fuck the stock market and therefore pension holders.

 

Even if it takes 4 times as long (market value over compensation value) and therefore takes 28 years to pay itself off, is that still not worth it? And, I might add, quicker at paying itself off than Brexit is meant to be by almost twice as much.

 

Although I think you're perhaps overestimating the extent Labour care about the stock market. Would £150bn being wiped out really even faze it? I appreciate the precedent it sets would be alarming though.

[Gemmill 44398]

 

 

Tremendous from Munchetty.

 

The utterly weird cunt concocting an NHS story about the time he stood on a broken cafetiere at a barbecue. 

 

 

[Gemmill 44398]

1 hour ago, ewerk said:

Yeah except they’d have to pay market value or near to it unless they wanted to fuck the stock market and therefore pension holders.

 

Free broadband piped to your caravan though innit. Uploading your bareknuckle call-out videos at breakneck speed. Just embrace it. 

[PaddockLad 17079]

12 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

 

Tremendous from Munchetty.

 

The utterly weird cunt concocting an NHS story about the time he stood on a broken cafetiere at a barbecue. 

 

 

Naga is the most passive aggressive person in Western Europe. She’s like a human cactus

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by PaddockLad

[PaddockLad 17079]

 

[Gemmill 44398]

4 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

Naga is the most passive aggressive person in Western Europe. She’s like a human cactus

 

The only way she could have improved that delivery was taking a sip of her drink immediately after saying it. "... At a barbecue? *sip*"

 

Sensational. 

[ewerk 30266]

16 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

Free broadband piped to your caravan though innit. Uploading your bareknuckle call-out videos at breakneck speed. Just embrace it. 

You’re fucking next, knobbly knees.

[PaddockLad 17079]

4 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

The only way she could have improved that delivery was taking a sip of her drink immediately after saying it. "... At a barbecue? *sip*"

 

Sensational. 

Did I mention I find her strikingly beautiful and I have a strange longing to utter the words “yes mistress” to her?...

[Gemmill 44398]

I watched one of those a while back with some daft cunt calling out some lad called "Simey". Fucking amazing. 

[ewerk 30266]

33 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Even if it takes 4 times as long (market value over compensation value) and therefore takes 28 years to pay itself off, is that still not worth it? And, I might add, quicker at paying itself off than Brexit is meant to be by almost twice as much.

 

Although I think you're perhaps overestimating the extent Labour care about the stock market. Would £150bn being wiped out really even faze it? I appreciate the precedent it sets would be alarming though.

I dunno, how about spending that money on THINGS THAT FUCKING MATTER?!?

[Rayvin 5183]

46 minutes ago, ewerk said:

I dunno, how about spending that money on THINGS THAT FUCKING MATTER?!?

 

Sure but it does at least appear to make long term economic sense. Do you have shares in Royal Mail or something?

[ewerk 30266]

I had but sold them at a profit.

But what’s the point of privatising Royal Mail? Seriously, who gives a shit? It doesn’t make any of our lives better and diverts £2bn from areas where we actually need it.

[Rayvin 5183]

9 minutes ago, ewerk said:

I had but sold them at a profit.

But what’s the point of privatising Royal Mail? Seriously, who gives a shit? It doesn’t make any of our lives better and diverts £2bn from areas where we actually need it.

 

It doesn't sound like any areas that actually need it are going to be left behind though. The issue would appear to be the extent to which we can afford the borrowing. Honestly I think all of this needs to boost GDP and growth for it to really be sustainable. I can see the argument on the broadband one, since even the CBI have said that just a 10% increase in fibre availability should offer a 1% GDP growth, but these other areas I'm less sure about.

[ewerk 30266]

That’s fibre statistic is utter bullshit.

Nationalisation does not boost GDP. 

The fact is that outside of government spending the Labour Party don’t seem to have any policy that will boost GDP.

 

[Rayvin 5183]

8 minutes ago, ewerk said:

That’s fibre statistic is utter bullshit.

Nationalisation does not boost GDP. 

The fact is that outside of government spending the Labour Party don’t seem to have any policy that will boost GDP.

 

 

I think there's a decent argument behind it as the economy pivots more towards home working and supporting industries.

 

Also, would not widespread investment boost GDP through Keynesian economic theory?

[ewerk 30266]

Yes. Keynesian economics relies heavily on economic spending but it has to be done it such a way as to boost the economy. Nationalisation doesn’t do much of that. It also involves cutting taxes, which Labour can’t do.

[Rayvin 5183]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

Yes. Keynesian economics relies heavily on economic spending but it has to be done it such a way as to boost the economy. Nationalisation doesn’t do much of that. It also involves cutting taxes, which Labour can’t do.

 

Labour is effectively cutting taxes by providing for free, services which people would otherwise pay for. Sure it's not actually a tax cut, but it has the same effect. Everyone uses these services and would otherwise have to pay for them, so by taking that pressure away, your average families have more money.

 

I was under the impression that Keynesianism relied heavily on your every day workers having more money to spend, and boosting GDP through their own purchasing power. I mean sure, targeted industry spending will have a big impact too. But with them pushing for Green energy, I don't see why that can't become a leading area of GDP development.

[Rayvin 5183]

Will HS2, at £70bn or whatever it is now, be as productive for the economy as free broadband? I'm doubtful. Renton may disagree.

[Rayvin 5183]

Having said all of this, here is your justification for it, for Labour:

 

 

[ewerk 30266]

15 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Labour is effectively cutting taxes by providing for free, services which people would otherwise pay for. Sure it's not actually a tax cut, but it has the same effect. Everyone uses these services and would otherwise have to pay for them, so by taking that pressure away, your average families have more money.

 

I was under the impression that Keynesianism relied heavily on your every day workers having more money to spend, and boosting GDP through their own purchasing power. I mean sure, targeted industry spending will have a big impact too. But with them pushing for Green energy, I don't see why that can't become a leading area of GDP development.

What services are they providing for free apart from broadband?

[ewerk 30266]

11 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

Having said all of this, here is your justification for it, for Labour:

 

 

Wow. 62% of people like getting something for free. Shocking!

Ask them where broadband sits in their list of priorities and that’ll tell you something else.

Edited November 15, 2019 by ewerk

[Rayvin 5183]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

What services are they providing for free apart from broadband?

 

Well I was just referring to this one really but was writing off the cuff. The others, I assume, will all be cheaper. Commuting (which free broadband, Labour claim, will also eat into - and I suspect they're right) will be under state owned rail, and I would imagine that the same will be true for water and energy suppliers since publicly owned operations don't need to make a profit.

 

What does that have to do with the rest of my point though? Unless your argument is about to be that it's negligible.

[ewerk 30266]

Everyone:

Everyone:

Everyone:

Labour: FREE BROADBAND FOR ALL!!!

Everyone: Mmmmm, okay...

[Rayvin 5183]

2 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Wow. 62% of people like getting something for free. Shocking!

Ask them where broadband sits in their list of priorities and that’ll tell you something else.

 

Captures people's attention though... the British public are stupid and unfocused remember.